The only person I wouldn't be nervous about coming out against this is Ricky Ponting circa 2001.Imagine how nervous we'd be if Pucovski was coming out against Archer...
Definitely was jammy.Yeah I used the wrong word. Don't have to be dicks when I correct myself.
It was a lucky hundred was what I meant.
I took 12-1 about England earlier.
Since Burns' knock 1st dig in Edgbaston Aussies act like batsmen have never played a false shot and stayed in.Hmm so it seems my post about downhill skiing was misunderstood.
I meant after all the letoffs yesterday it was a very lucky hundred, more than a piling in the runs in no pressure hundred.
I guess watching Smith score runs recently has spoiled me for how difficult runs should be to get.
I'm not sure whether they should, but given what's happened today I think they'll go back to Starc, yeah.Starc must play next game and siddle to be dropped.
Yeah, because what Australia really lacked in this game was a quick who goes for 4 an over.Starc must play next game and siddle to be dropped.
I'm not convinced. Too much hindsight in that situation.If England have Aussies 7 wickets down by end of play they are going to be kicking themselves for not declaring at least 30 minutes earlier.
Only a fiverYou should cash out what was the stake
Yeah, about time England got some revenge for that series.You never want to see an injury in a test. That being said test cricket is so good when a genuine quick is going after batsmen. Reminiscent of that last golden summer of MJ.
Really?Won't make a difference though will it, light notwithstanding
Tbf, with Smith out of the line-up, Australia probably loses the last Test.I'm not convinced. Too much hindsight in that situation.
No captain in the world would offer up 230 off 55 overs.If England have Aussies 7 wickets down by end of play they are going to be kicking themselves for not declaring at least 30 minutes earlier.
Clarke would have for sure. I guess he doesn't count as current, though.No captain in the world would offer up 230 off 55 overs.